1200 years? Not bad then! I think most countries have quite a smaller history! The problem is that we don't know what would have happened if Tibet had no affairs with Buddhadharma, so it's just idle speculation. There's also another thing we should keep in mind. Not only Tibetans take rebirth in Tibet. As fas as we know, most of the Tibetans living there now could have been Europeans in a former life! (Although not likely) Or Bonpos from the old days! Who knows? What seems more likely to me is that if it weren't for Buddhism, probably we wouldn't even be speaking of Bön right now.There are so many holes in the argument you've presented that I could use it as a fishing net...

Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Clearly invoking fear is due to threat of violence. If you believe in karma and it's not just lip service, then you believe that threat of violence is strong negative karma. The problem of Tibet is called impermanence. It is also interdependence. All those blessings bottled up in one place needed to get out. They bubbled out. Of course all the violence against Tibetans is due to violence they imposed in the past, perhaps when they were Bonpos striking fear into their neighbors. All the lies told about Tibetan masters is due to Tibetan masters telling lies in the past. Karma is inescapable. I'm simplifying, but you get me.

Hey, guys, I know very well, very very well, why it was all happened with Tibet! Pay attention, please:

Once upon a time there was a guy in Czech Republic who was interested in yoga, buddhism, mysticism, etc. While he was in meditation one day, he saw an old man comming and entering in him. According to him, it was Marpa Lotsawa and he became his tulku. Later on he claimed, that he has stolen kagyu teachings from Tibet and because of this, the TIbet will suffer!!! His followers up to this days have no interest to meet any lama at all, cos why for? Lamas have no teaching at all, everything was stolen long time ago....

Bon is a renegade branch of Indian Vajrayana (also known as "Tibetan Buddhism").

Hello Enochian,

Bon is older than Tibetan Buddhism because it was the religion before Dorje Thekpa was set up.So it is clear to me that Bon is the forerunner of "Tibetan Buddhism e.g. Vajrayana".

Bon has also its own script the Zhang Zhung script and their Dzogchen cycle of teachings the "Zhang Zhung Nyen Gyud "is written in this older language.So Tibet had before the year 800 already a script, or even several languages, a religion, customs etc.

About the Tibetan karma i would say that if one is playing with the Mongol dragon AND the Chinese Dragon, one can get serious problems.So this befriended politic of the Mongul Khans with the Gelug and the Chinese Emperors connected with the Kagyu ended in the exodus of the better Tibetans about 1959. Chinese wall tells us that the Chinese were afraid of the Monguls. So Chinese were very interested to be befriended with the Tibetans, because they knew Tibetans were befriended with the Monguls. It was a Gelugpa, who converted a certain Mongol Khan to Vajrayana.

Gelug did rule in Tibet from 1400 to 1959. So when Mao ruled in China one of the first things he conquered was therefore Tibet.

Want to underline that Bon as well Nyingma never played, after 800, a crucial role regarding Tibetan political rulership.Better said that was not possible because Bon was persecuted and Nyingma had a strange philosophy which was called Dzogchen.So both were not so very popular in those days by certain Tibetan rulers.

Best wishesKalden Yungdrug

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

You realize that Sam van Schaik's say is that there was a a relligion called Bon before Buddhism?

"The conclusion I’d like to draw is that at least some Buddhists, by the end of the 10th century and perhaps earlier, thought of the funeral rituals practised in earlier times by Tibetan ritual specialists as a religion called Bon."

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

Enochian wrote:Read the following quote over and over again, until it sinks in:

"But the fact is it’s not at all clear that there was a religion in Tibet called “Bon” before the 11th century."

heart wrote:You realize that Sam van Schaik's say is that there was a a relligion called Bon before Buddhism?

/magnus

No he is saying the exact opposite. You didn't even read what you quoted, did you?

He is saying "The conclusion I’d like to draw is that at least some Buddhists, by the end of the 10th century and perhaps earlier, thought of the funeral rituals practised in earlier times by Tibetan ritual specialists as a religion called Bon." . It is clear enough.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

heart wrote:He is saying "The conclusion I’d like to draw is that at least some Buddhists, by the end of the 10th century and perhaps earlier, thought of the funeral rituals practised in earlier times by Tibetan ritual specialists as a religion called Bon." . It is clear enough.

/magnus

In this sentence, he is saying 10th century buddhists RETROACTIVELY applied the term "Bon"

"According to the Bon tradition itself, it was founded by Shenrab Miwo, who lived thirty thousand years ago. That would place him somewhere in the Stone Age. I don't think this means he was a caveman. A common way to show great respect to a lineage is to say it is ancient. The actual dates of his lifespan are not possible to prove in any case. Shenrab Miwo lived in Omolungring. The description of this place seems to be a mixture of ideas about Shambhala, Mt. Meru, and Mt. Kailash. It is the description of an ideal spiritual land. It was said to be within a larger area called Tazig. The word "Tazig" can be found both in Persian and Arabic to refer to either Persia or Arabia. In other contexts, it refers to a nomadic tribe. In the Bon tradition, Tazig is described as being to the west of the kingdom of Zhang-zhung, which was in Western Tibet.

This suggests that Bon came from Central Asia, and probably an Iranian cultural area. It is possible that Shenrab Miwo lived in an ancient Iranian culture and then came to Zhang-zhung. Some versions say he came sometime between the eleventh and seventh centuries B.C.E. That is also a very long time ago and, again, there is no way of proving one or the other position. What is clear is that by the time of the founding of the Yarlung Dynasty in Central Tibet (127 B.C.E.) there was already something of a native tradition. We do not even know what it was called at that time."

adinatha wrote:The notion that ancient Tajiks had A path to buddhahood ...

I see you are keeping up the long Drigung tradition of anti-Bon polemics.

Honestly I had no idea there was a long Drigung tradition of anti-Bon polemics. I'm just kiddin ya. I'm sure the Tazik people had a 20,000 year old high culture.

Yes, the first Buddhist polemical mention of Bon occurs in the initial commentarial literature of dgongs gcig by rdor she. The earliest Buddhist account of Bon was penned by Jigten Sumgon. Most other Buddhist presentations of Bon follow his rough outline.

There are other presentations of Bon which are more favorable, notably Guru Chowang's Great History of Treasures where he describes Tonpa Shenrab as a nirmanakāya. Guru Chowang is the original terton who revealed the seven line supplication to Guru Rinpoche.

N

Last edited by purple rose on Sun May 01, 2011 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:offensive portion of quote deleted